Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.595 (2026)

Precedence of cause of action; compensation paid or payable not to be an issue

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      656.595 Precedence of cause of action; compensation paid or payable not to be an issue. (1) Any action brought against a third party or employer, as provided in this chapter, shall have precedence over all other civil cases.

      (2) In any third party action brought pursuant to this chapter, the fact that the injured worker or the beneficiaries of the injured worker are entitled to or have received benefits under this chapter shall not be pleaded or admissible in evidence.

      (3) A challenge of the right to bring such third party action shall be made by supplemental pleadings only and such challenge shall be determined by the court as a matter of law. [Formerly 656.324]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1967–2019 · leading case: Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 551 P.2d 1269 (Or. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 551 P.2d 1269 (Or. 1976). · cites it 16× “[5] Such a procedure closely parallels that specifically provided for in ORS 656.595(3) for raising similar challenges to an individual's right to bring a civil action against a third party for work-connected injuries.”
Nancy Doty, Inc. v. Wildcat Haven, Inc., 439 P.3d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “As required by ORS 656.595(3), that preliminary question of immunity was tried to the court, which determined that the Tullers had not acted negligently "outside of the capacity" as officers and directors and, thus, were entitled to immunity on plaintiff's claims.”
Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 437 P.3d 1107 (Or. 2019). · cites it 3× “710(1) in that context, we conclude that the text-"claims subject to *** ORS chapter 656"-most plausibly encompasses an exception for the types of claims against noncomplying employers and third parties described in ORS 656.”
Cole v. Zidell Explorations, Inc., 550 P.2d 1194 (Or. 1976). · cites it 6× “4 The trial court then ruled that plaintiff was "absolutely correct insofar as the answer is concerned,” but then allowed defendant to file a proper supplemental answer, as provided by ORS 656.595(3), saying: "I don’t believe in people taking advantage of other people’s mistakes…”
Cornelison v. Seabold, 460 P.2d 1009 (Or. 1969). · cites it 5× “324(3) (now ORS 656.595(3)) provides: “A challenge to the right to bring such third party action shall be made by supplemental pleadings only, and such challenge shall be determined by the Court as a matter of law.”
Bowers v. Mathis, 571 P.2d 489 (Or. 1977). · cites it 3× “1 The trial court held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to ORS 656.595(3) 2 to determine the construction of the 1966 "Extraterritorial Reciprocity Agreement” between the workmen’s compensation authorities of Oregon and Washington (hereinafter Agreement) and its application to…”
Dlouhy v. Simpson Timber Co., 431 P.2d 846 (Or. 1967). “Plaintiff in a “third-party” personal-injury action under ORS 656.595 appeals from an order dismissing *573 the action against Simpson Timber Co.”
Weber v. Kamyr, Inc., 525 P.2d 1307 (Or. 1974). “Plaintiff next contends the court erred in permitting Kamyr’s attorney to ask a witness, contrary to the provisions of ORS 656.595 (2), ① whether his employer, Boise Cascade, had a direct financial interest in the case.”
Toohey v. Aviation Adventures, LLC, 345 P.3d 457 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “Finally, in its fourth assignment of error, plaintiff contends that the trial court violated ORS 656.595(2) by admitting and considering evidence that the beneficiaries of Toohey and Ketcheson had received workers’ compensation benefits.”
Green v. Mkt. Supply Co., 479 P.2d 736 (Or. 1971). “Defendant first answered with a general denial and then filed a supplemental answer as authorized by ORS 656.595 alleging that plaintiff’s sole remedy was to recover the benefits provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Law.”
Carlston v. Greenstein, 471 P.2d 806 (Or. 1970). “324(3) [now ORS 656.595 (3)], ① filed a supplemental answer alleging that he was an employer subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, that at the time of the injury plaintiff and his employer were engaged with Nudelman in a common enterprise on premises over which Greenstein…”
Hamilton v. Ibach, 556 P.2d 94 (Or. 1976). “Prior to the jury trial on the merits there was a trial before the court upon defendant’s supplemental answer filed pursuant to ORS 656.595 raising the "joint premises” defense available under then ORS 656.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.595(1) — 1 case
Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 437 P.3d 1107 (Or. 2019). “710(1) in that context, we conclude that the text-"claims subject to *** ORS chapter 656"-most plausibly encompasses an exception for the types of claims against noncomplying employers and third parties described in ORS 656.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.595(2) — 2 cases
Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 437 P.3d 1107 (Or. 2019). “710(1) in that context, we conclude that the text-"claims subject to *** ORS chapter 656"-most plausibly encompasses an exception for the types of claims against noncomplying employers and third parties described in ORS 656.”
Toohey v. Aviation Adventures, LLC, 345 P.3d 457 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “Finally, in its fourth assignment of error, plaintiff contends that the trial court violated ORS 656.595(2) by admitting and considering evidence that the beneficiaries of Toohey and Ketcheson had received workers’ compensation benefits.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.595(3) — 6 cases
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 551 P.2d 1269 (Or. 1976). “[5] Such a procedure closely parallels that specifically provided for in ORS 656.595(3) for raising similar challenges to an individual's right to bring a civil action against a third party for work-connected injuries.”
Nancy Doty, Inc. v. Wildcat Haven, Inc., 439 P.3d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “As required by ORS 656.595(3), that preliminary question of immunity was tried to the court, which determined that the Tullers had not acted negligently "outside of the capacity" as officers and directors and, thus, were entitled to immunity on plaintiff's claims.”
Cole v. Zidell Explorations, Inc., 550 P.2d 1194 (Or. 1976). “4 The trial court then ruled that plaintiff was "absolutely correct insofar as the answer is concerned,” but then allowed defendant to file a proper supplemental answer, as provided by ORS 656.595(3), saying: "I don’t believe in people taking advantage of other people’s mistakes…”
Cornelison v. Seabold, 460 P.2d 1009 (Or. 1969). “324(3) (now ORS 656.595(3)) provides: “A challenge to the right to bring such third party action shall be made by supplemental pleadings only, and such challenge shall be determined by the Court as a matter of law.”
Bowers v. Mathis, 571 P.2d 489 (Or. 1977). “1 The trial court held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to ORS 656.595(3) 2 to determine the construction of the 1966 "Extraterritorial Reciprocity Agreement” between the workmen’s compensation authorities of Oregon and Washington (hereinafter Agreement) and its application to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.